Peter Memishian wrote:
> > Mike> This looks like a stylistic change that is contrary to the
> > Mike> existing code. Is there some other benefit to using print? Note
> > Mike> that the echo(1) man page says that "echo" is a built-in for ksh.
> >
> > One reason to use print occurred to me last night: error messages should
> > usually go to stderr, not stdout, and that's easier with print ("print
> > -u2") than with echo. So I'll go ahead with the switch to print.
>
> While I agree using "print -u2 foo" is better, I'm not sure how it's
> any harder than "echo foo >&2".
Erm, "echo foo >&2" are two seperate statements while "print -u2 foo" is
only one (for general issues with "echo" (and why "print" should be
strongly preferred in ksh scripts) see
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/tools-discuss/2007-July/006611.html).
----
Bye,
Roland
--
__ . . __
(o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
/O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090
(;O/ \/ \O;)
_______________________________________________
tools-discuss mailing list
tools-discuss@opensolaris.org
